Last week, Rick Santorum said he didn't think women should be allowed in combat because the "types of emotions that are involved." Well, he's since clarified his position, and it turns out he wasn't referring to women's out of control emotions but men's. You see, he's worried that male soldiers would get themselves in trouble because they couldn't resist the primal urge to take care of their little women comrades in need.

What's so ridiculously perfect is that in trying to make his original remarks seem less offensive, he actually stepped even further into the shit. When he speaking with ABC News this weekend, he gave a little chuckle and went out of his way to explain that it's actually those manly men who would get all wigged out if women were to step foot on the frontlines:

I was talking about men's emotional issues; not women. … I mean, there's a lot of issues. That's just one of them. Men who are certainly in our culture, are focused on if a woman is in trouble, obviously to react to try to protect and care for that person, that's something that is built in culturally. It's built in. And so my concern is being in combat in that situation, instead of focused on the mission, they may be more concerned about protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position.

Aww, Rickery-dickory-dock, that's so sweet that you're worried that men have feelings too—and it's so nice that your stereotypes are equally misapplied to both sexes. But it's sort of weird that you think men are tough enough to be in combat alone, and yet you don't think they're tough enough to resist the urge to play hero while jumping to the aid of a damsel in distress. Maybe it'd be better to leave the overly chivalrous men at home instead of keeping the women out entirely? Oh, I see. There is one very big reason that you don't think that would be wise:

Advertisement

You throw on top of that just simply physical strength and capabilities. You may be out there on a mission where there's you and a woman, and if you're injured the ability to be able to transport that person back. There's just, there are physical limitations.

Well, if it isn't the oldest excuse in the book for keeping women out of any physical job! But guess what, Rick-Or-Treat, everyone who goes into combat has to be qualified and is held to physical standards. So there wouldn't be anyone there who was too weak to handle it. Also, have you met some of these female soldiers you're so fond of "respecting"? The word "limitations" isn't something I'd put within a three-mile radius of those ladies.

So, at this point it's pretty clear where you stand on this issue, but would you like to sum up your feelings for us and finish shoving your foot the rest of the way down your throat and right out your anus?

Women have served and do serve and do wonderful things within the military. And they do have opportunities to serve in dangerous positions. … And I certainly understand that and respect that and admire women for doing so, but I think on the frontline of combat is not the best place, and it's not maximizing what they can bring to the table.

OK, great, if that's the case, then how exactly can we maximize what we bring to the table? Let me guess: It has something to do with making a nice roast chicken and some mashed potatoes and some green beans and getting you a nice tall glass of water while we're at it? I think I can speak for all women when I say this: I'm sure we'd love to bring you—and all the men of the military—a lovely Sunday supper with all the fixings, but I'm just not sure we're strong enough to carry that cooked bird all the way to the table by ourselves.